Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 1/2015

Open Access 01-01-2015 | Knee

All-inside suture device is superior to meniscal arrows in meniscal repair: a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial with 2-year follow-up

Authors: Nina Jullum Kise, Jon Olav Drogset, Arne Ekeland, Einar Andreas Sivertsen, Stig Heir

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Multiple techniques and implants are available for all-inside meniscal repair, but the knowledge about their failure rates and functional outcome is still incomplete. The hypothesis was that there might be differences between meniscal arrows and suture devices regarding reoperation rates and functional outcome. Thereby, the aim of this study was to compare clinical results following repair with the Biofix® arrows or the FasT-Fix® suture devices.

Methods

In this RCT, 46 patients were treated either by Biofix® (n = 21) or FasT-Fix® (n = 25). The main outcome was reoperation within 2 years. Knee function and activity level were evaluated by KOOS and Tegner activity scale.

Results

Twelve out of 46 (26 %) patients were reoperated within 2 years, nine out of 21 (43 %) in the Biofix®-group versus three out of 25 (12 %) in the FasT-Fix®-group (p = 0.018). The relative risk of reoperation was 3.6 times higher for Biofix® compared to FasT-Fix® (95 % confidence interval 1.1–11.5). Both treatment groups had significant increase in all KOOS subscales, but there were no major differences between the groups. The subgroup of reoperated patients differed from the other patients with higher Tegner score preoperatively (median 5 vs. 4) (p = 0.037) and at 3-month follow-up (median 4 vs. 3) (p = 0.010).

Conclusions

These results indicate that FasT-Fix® suture is superior to Biofix® arrows with significant lower failure rate. Functional outcome did not depend on repair technique. Higher activity score preoperatively and at 3-month follow-up in the reoperated patients indicates that activity level may influence on the risk of reoperation.

Level of evidence

I.
Literature
1.
Albrecht-Olsen P, Kristensen G, Törmälä P (1993) Meniscus bucket handle fixation with an absorbable Biofix tack: development of a new technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1:104–106PubMedCrossRef
2.
Albrecht-Olsen P, Kristensen G, Burgaard P, Joergensen U, Toerholm C (1999) The arrow versus horizontal suture in meniscus repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 7:268–273PubMedCrossRef
3.
Anetzberger H, Birkenmaier C, Lorenz S (2014) Meniscectomy: indications, procedure, outcomes, and rehabilitation. J Orthop Res 6:1–9
4.
Borden P, Nyland J, Caborn DNM, Pienkowski D (2003) Biomechanical comparison of the FasT-Fix meniscal repair suture system with vertical mattress sutures and meniscus arrows. Am J Sports Med 31(3):374–378PubMed
5.
Brittberg M, Winalski CS (2003) Evaluation of cartilage injuries and repair. J Bone Jt Surg 85:58–69
6.
Fox MG (2007) MR imaging of the meniscus: review, current trends, and clinical implications. Radiol Clin N Am 45(6):1033–1053PubMedCrossRef
7.
Gifstad T, Grontvedt T, Drogset JO (2007) Meniscal repair with biofix arrows: results after 4.7 years’ follow-up. Am J Sports Med 35(1):71–74PubMedCrossRef
8.
Gill SS, Diduch DR (2002) Outcomes after meniscal repair using the meniscus arrow in knees undergoing concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 18(6):569–577PubMedCrossRef
9.
Grant JA, Wilde J, Miller BS, Bedi A (2012) Comparison of inside-out and all-inside techniques for the repair of isolated meniscal tears: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 40(2):459–468PubMedCrossRef
10.
Haas AL, Schepsis AA, Hornstein J, Edgar CM (2005) Meniscal repair using the FasT-Fix all-inside meniscal repair device. Arthroscopy 21(2):167–175PubMedCrossRef
11.
Huber J, Lisinski P, Kloskowska P, Gronek A, Lisiewicz E, Trzeciak T (2013) Meniscus suture provides better clinical and biomechanical results at 1-year follow-up than meniscectomy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133(4):541–549PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
12.
Jones HP, Lemos MJ, Wilk RM, Smiley PM, Gutierrez R, Schepsis AA (2002) Two-year follow-up of meniscal repair using a bioabsorbable arrow. Arthroscopy 18(1):64–69PubMedCrossRef
13.
Kotsovolos ES, Hantes ME, Mastrokalos DS, Lorbach O, Paessler HH (2006) Results of all-inside meniscal repair with the FasT-Fix meniscal repair system. Arthroscopy 22(1):3–9PubMedCrossRef
14.
Lin DL, Ruh SS, Jones HL, Karim A, Noble PC, McCulloch PC (2013) Does high knee flexion cause separation of meniscal repairs? Am J Sports Med 41(9):2143–2150PubMedCrossRef
15.
Nepple JJ, Dunn WR, Wright RW (2012) Meniscal repair outcomes at greater than five years: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 24:2222–2227CrossRef
16.
Paradowski PT, Bergman S, Sunden-Lundius A, Lohmander LS, Roos EM (2006) Knee complaints vary with age and gender in the adult population. Population-based reference data for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7:38PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
17.
Paxton ES, Stock MV, Brophy RH (2011) Meniscal repair versus partial meniscectomy: a systematic review comparing reoperation rates and clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy 27(9):1275–1288PubMedCrossRef
18.
Petsche TS, Selesnick H, Rochman A (2002) Arthroscopic meniscus repair with bioabsorbable arrows. Arthroscopy 18(3):246–253PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
Pujol N, Tardy N, Boisrenoult P, Beaufils P (2013) Magnetic Resonance Imaging is not suitable for interpretation of meniscal status ten years after arthroscopic repair. Int Orthop 37(12):2371–2376PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
21.
Roos EM, Roos HP, Ekdahl C, Lohmander LS (1998) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS): validation of a Swedish version. Scand J Med Sci Sports 8:439–448PubMedCrossRef
22.
Roos EM, Lohmander S (2003) The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcome 1:64CrossRef
23.
Rosso C, Muller S, Buckland DM, Schwenk T, Zimmermann S, de Wild M, Valderrabano V (2014) All-inside meniscal repair devices compared with their matched inside-out vertical mattress suture repair: introducing 10,000 and 100,000 loading cycles. Am J Sports Med 42(9):2226–2233PubMedCrossRef
24.
Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49PubMed
25.
Vascellari A, Rebuzzi E, Schiavetti S, Coletti N (2012) All-inside meniscal repair using the FasT-Fix meniscal repair system: is still needed to avoid weight bearing? A systematic review. Musculoskelet Surg 96(3):149–154PubMedCrossRef
26.
Venkatachalam S, Godsiff SP, Harding ML (2001) Review of clinical results of arthroscopic meniscal repair. Knee 8:129–133PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zantop T, Eggers AK, Hassenpflug J (2004) Initial fixation strength of flexible all-inside meniscus suture anchors in comparison to conventional suture technique and rigid anchors. Am J Sports Med 32(4):863–869PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
All-inside suture device is superior to meniscal arrows in meniscal repair: a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial with 2-year follow-up
Authors
Nina Jullum Kise
Jon Olav Drogset
Arne Ekeland
Einar Andreas Sivertsen
Stig Heir
Publication date
01-01-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 1/2015
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3423-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 1/2015 Go to the issue

Knee

MR-arthrography assessment after repair of chronic meniscal tears

Knee

Meniscal allograft transplantation. Part 1: systematic review of graft biology, graft shrinkage, graft extrusion, graft sizing, and graft fixation

Knee

Medial meniscus anatomy—from basic science to treatment

Knee

Risk factors for posterior lateral meniscus root tears in anterior cruciate ligament injuries

Knee

Successful conservative treatment of patients with MRI-verified meniscal lesions

Experimental Study

Biomechanical evaluation of different suture materials for arthroscopic transtibial pull-out repair of posterior meniscus root tears